The following collection posted by Johnie is tastefully and
respectfully done, exhibitinng the contagious enthusiam of ideal
boyhood. The subjects of this essay appear to having the very best
time of it ... all smiles and sparkling eyes and gleaming, winsome
smiles ...
*Sigh*
Where was I?
Oh, yes. Nevertheless, the entire series is composed of nudes and a
preponderance of the images have a distinctly sensual if not erotic
nature to them. So be forewarned, if you are easily offended by
youthful nudity. Such work demands the question, of course, as to
what is artful portrayal of nudity and sensuality and what constitutes
pornography. In addition, at what point are pornographic images, for
example, in Britain, deemed illegal?
As to the first question, I would state unequivocably that nude shots,
taken expressedly for that purpose and with very few exceptions, are
intended to evoke a sense of sensuality, or sexual stimulation in the
mind of the viewer. If one defines pornography as imagery intended to
evoke a sexual response, mental, physical or both, then the images in
this display could be considered [and ARE considered such by most of
our society's "moral guardians"] as pornographic.
The definition as to what is permissable pornography and illegal
pornography is determined by evaluating the age of the subjects and
the nature and extent to which sexual arousal or sexual activity is
depicted . As one American judge once so incisively pronounced, "I
can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it." Well! Indeed!
I wonder what magazines he subscribed to? Probably none, but kept
late hours in the evidence room, doubtlessly!
At any rate, I digress. One must wonder when a particular complaint
over potentially illegal pornographic images reached the court, how
the court actually determines the legal status of the images in
question. Certainly, it must scrutinize the images carefully, looking
for signs of sexual arousal and ask themselves, "Does that young lad
have a woody? Does that look like an erection to you, or is the boy's
penis just short, stubby and merely poking out--that if he stood up,
would it not fall back into place rather than remain poking out??? Is
a partial hard-on legally impermissible, or does it have to be a full
hard-on? What qualities comprise an erection, anyway? Does one have
to observe bulging veins and a glans extending past the foreskin? Do
both conditions have to exist to define it as an erection? What of
the cases of circumcision, or at the very least lads who are clearly
"foreskin challenged?" What if the boy is posed to appear to have a
boner by standing on his head or doing a back bend? And if he does
not truly have an erection, is the image illegal merely because the
intent of the photographer was to make the boy appear to have one?
Oh dear, oh dear. Such a quandry! What to do?
Well, I suggest you dear patrons of the gallery examine the following
images carefully--I believe there may be boy who possibly might have a
borderline boner in among them--although the position of the leg makes
it rather difficult to determine for certain--it certainly COULD be
...
I shall leave it to your discerning examination, then.
Oh, and thank you once more, Johnie.
VV
God Save Her Majesty the Queen.
God Preserve the Prince of Wales.
Rule Britannia!
|
|